里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书(5)

alteration. The learned surrogate refers to the provisions of the civil law for such and other cases of unworthy conduct in the heir or legatee, and says: \can be revoked eliciting the statutory provision. This is the law by which I am governed in passing upon questions touching the revocation of wills. The whole of this subject is now regulated by statute; and a mere intention to revoke, however well authenticated, or how ever defeated, is not sufficient.\may refer also to a case in the Pennsylvania courts. In that state the statute prescribed the mode for repealing or altering a will, and in Clingan v. Micheltree, 31 Pa. St. 25, the supreme court of the state held, where a will was kept from destruction by the fraud and misrepresentation of the devisee, that to declare it canceled as against the fraudulent party would be to enlarge the statute.

纽约州和肯塔基州早些时候的两个案件，可以支持我的观点。一个案件是1820年肯塔基州上诉法院判决的盖恩斯诉盖恩斯案，该案说遗嘱人试图撕毁所立遗嘱，但被告或受赠人恶意阻止其撕毁遗嘱，遗嘱最终得到支持，没有被撤销。法院认为遗嘱本身表明遗嘱没有被撤销，也没有相关的证据证明遗嘱已被撤销，意图不能否定事实。另一个是保存并强行扣留遗嘱的案件——立基福特诉希蒙斯案，法官布雷德福的观点（案卷854页）被充分考虑，并决定了该案的判决。立遗嘱人

是一位89岁的老人，打算在遗嘱中增加分给女儿财产的内容，但遗嘱在其儿子手中，儿子对这一修改抱有成见，不答应立遗嘱人的修改要求。博学的布雷德福法官，根据民法对这种或类似的继承人或受赠人行为无效的相关规定说：“我们的制定法对如何撤销遗嘱有相关规定，要撤销遗嘱就应该遵守制定法的规定。该案应该接受制定法的规制，仅有撤销意图，不论多么真实，如何没能实现，都是不充分的。”他坚持认为，必须认可公证遗嘱的效力。我还可以引用宾夕法尼亚州法院的一个案例，该州制定法规定了撤销或修改遗嘱的方式，在克林根诉米切尔特里案中，该州最高法院坚持认为，如果遗嘱没有因受赠人的欺诈和不实陈述而改变，仅仅为了反对欺诈一方当事人而撤销遗嘱，这是在扩张制定法。

I cannot find any support for the argument that the respondent's succession to the property should be avoided because of his criminal act, when the laws are silent. Public policy does not demand it; for the demands of public policy are satisfied by the proper execution of the laws and the punishment of the crime. There has been no convention between the testator and his legatee; nor is there any such contractual element, in such a disposition of property by a testator, as to impose or imply conditions in the legatee. The appellants' argument practically amounts to this: that, as the legatee has been guilty of a crime, by the commission of which he is placed in a position to sooner receive the benefits of the

testamentary provision, his rights to the property should he forfeited, and he should be divested of his estate. To allow their argument to prevail would involve the diversion by the court of the testator's estate into the hands of persons whom, possibly enough, for all we know, the testator might not have chosen or desired as its recipients. Practically the court is asked to make another will for the testator. 'The laws do not warrant this judicial action, and mere presumption would not be strong enough to sustain it. But, more than this, to concede the appellants' views would involve the imposition of an additional punishment or penalty upon the respondent. What power or warrant have the courts to add to the respondent's penalties by depriving him of property? The law has punished him for his crime, and we may not say that it was an insufficient punishment. In the trial and punishment of the respondent the law has vindicated itself for the outrage which he committed, and further judicial utterance upon the subject of punishment or deprivation of rights is barred. We may not, in the language of the court in People v. Thornton, 25 Hun. 456, \law for the punishment of crime.\costs.

法律是沉默的，我找不到支持被上诉人因犯罪行为而丧失遗产继承权的任何法律根据。公共政策也不能这样要求，公共政策的要求需

要通过恰当地执行法律和惩罚犯罪来实现。没有任何惯例可循，立遗嘱人和受赠人之间也没有契约，立遗嘱人处置遗产时，也没有提出或暗含着对受赠人的条件要求。上诉人的主张实际上是基于如下考虑：作为犯罪人的受赠人，因其是通过犯罪行为而使自己获得遗嘱利益的，则其获得遗产的权利应当被剥夺，不应当获得遗产。如果这样的主张占据主导地位，则处理遗嘱继承案件的法院将出现分歧。正如我们所知道的，立遗嘱人或许不选择或愿意接受这样的结果，上诉人的主张实际上是要求法院另立一份遗嘱。法律不为司法判决提供保证，仅仅是为判决提供支持，不能被充分怀疑。更为重要的是，如果承认上诉人的观点，就会对被上诉人施加额外的惩罚。难道法院能通过剥夺被上诉人的继承权对其施加额外的惩罚吗？法律已对其犯罪行为规定了惩罚，我们不能说惩罚还不够充分。法律已对被上诉人的犯罪行为进行审判并作出惩罚，再对其施加惩罚或剥夺权利都是无根据的。我们或许没有忘记裴颇尔诉桑顿案中法院的判决：“对犯罪施加痛苦、惩罚和没收财产，都必须依据法律的规定。”这付出代价的判决必须得到坚持。

百度搜索“77cn”或“免费范文网”即可找到本站免费阅读全部范文。收藏本站方便下次阅读，免费范文网，提供经典小说综合文库里格斯诉帕尔默案判决书(5)在线全文阅读。